-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nicolas George wrote:

|> 	Well, AFAIK that particular aspect of the GPL has never been tested
|> in court.
|
| That is true, but that should not prevent people from reading the
law, and
| trying to understand it.
|
|> 	    But this is precisely what the GPL forbids. In particular,
|> if I take a GPL DLL and if I write a program that uses this DLL,
|> even if my program does not contain any outside code itself, I must
|> release it under the GPL
|
| ... and as far as I understand the law, there is absolutely no
case for the
| source code of the program in this situation. For the binary, on
the other
| hand, even shared libraries come with declaratives headers, which
are under
| GPL too.
|
	They are under GPL, but they are not part of the binary. It is
often possible to compile a program using a library without
including the headers in the source (OK, it's bad practice, but it
is possible).

| The argument of the FSF lawyers here is that the program needs the GPL
| library, it does not work without it. But the whole principle of the
| copyright laws is to consider software as a work of art. There is
no need
| for a work of art to work.

	So? My point is that I am *not* free to write a program using that
DLL and distribute my program any way I want. Therefore, the GPL is
not free.

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkh/eX4ACgkQd0kWM4JG3k+xpgCfSBA5esgxorzAySSDgxAAK4b3
eYwAnjkl3a/zn/vUTJEQkywFdWnl9TJ0
=IC2s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message